prostitution

I'm in favour of abolition. Here's some quotes from the corbyn thread (who is in favour of decriminalisation, as is mr tea)

Mr Tea: Baboon's hit the nail on the head - the debate does tend to be dominated by people with no experience of sex work who think they can speak on behalf of sex workers

Maybe so, but the issue effects everybody. You don't have to have direct experience of sex-work to have an opinion. You DO need to be informed though, and there is plenty of research to show that decriminalization/legalization actually does nothing to improve safety, 'monitoring' by the law remains woefully inadequate, the majority of violence still goes unreported, it does not result in safer sex practices, and prostitutes are still stigmatized and discriminated against by society. These are all myths, playing into the hands of organised crime.

I've read that in Scandinavia, a lot of prostitutes are highly critical of the so-called Nordic model (selling sex is legal but buying it is illegal) because punters are naturally afraid of prosecution and therefore give false names, which just makes everything riskier for the prostitutes. I believe the Collective of English Prostitutes takes basically the same stance.

so what? Should we then just give up on trying to target the demand? Don't you see this is exactly what the johns and criminal organizations who drive the sex industry want so they can maintain the status quo? And of the course the men that 'visit' prostitutes who feel they have the right to buy another persons body.

as for the prostitutes in favour of decriminalization/legalization: most of the arguments I' ve read have failed to convince me they're fully aware of the true extent of the damage caused by the sex industry, which is under the complete control of organized crime (and is surely to remain so even if it was decriminalized/legalised, as has happened in the Netherlands, Australia, NZ). Prostitutes are caught in this trap, and inevitably often become mouthpieces for those that profit financially from the sex industry - pimps, traffickers, the mafias. Sadly the vast majority of prostitutes do not speak out because they live in fear, or are silenced by the criminal gangs that exploit them.

Really I see it as symptomatic of an actually fairly reactionary school of academic feminism that simultaneously infantilizes women (by assuming they know what's best for sex workers and can speak for them)

Strange that you of all people take an anti-academic line. You rightly say that more prostitutes' voices should be heard but that's hardly feminists' fault. Lots of research is carried out, they're not just making this stuff up!

The abolitionist arguments I've read (from feminists or not) are backed up with research and the horrific statistics of abuse and murder caused by the sex industry pretty much speak for themselves. And the suggestion that abolitionists are nothing more than Victorian prudes is incredibly dismissive, offensive even. This is about the normalisation of the commercialisation of women's bodies, not squeamishness over sex.

You use the word 'infantilise' - sadly, many prostitutes ARE practically infants, too young to understand what they are getting forced into. they need responsible people to speak for them and help them escape the trap. decriminalisation in New Zealand for example has done practically nothing to prevent 13 year old girls selling their bodies on the streets, and the men arrested for buying sex from minors still receive light sentences. THIS is what happens when people like corbyn decide what is 'best' for prostitutes.

...and demonizes men (by conflating sexual desire, which is very often more about intimacy than it is about sex, in the case of men who visit prostitutes) with violence. Or it's just good old Victorian prudery dressed up as feminism

No, it YOU who are confusing 'sexual desire' and 'intimacy' with the act of paying for sex. Women should not be made responsible and made to suffer for men's inability to build safe, sexual relationships based on respect, without having to buy another person's body. Quoting Rachel Moran (a survivor of prostitution who wrote the book 'Paid for'), 'there are three types of john: those who assume the women they buy have no human feelings; those who are conscious of a woman's humanity but choose to ignore it; and those who derive sexual pleasure from reducing the humanity of women they buy'.

I can find a certain amount of sympathy for some men who pay for sex (but certainly not for most of them), but this pales in comparison to the injustice against women. I DO agree that there needs to be much more research into johns, of which there is actually very little compared to the vast amount of research into the prostitutes themselves.

One thing is clear: women often do not have a choice, but men who pay for sex ALWAYS do.

baboon2004: I don't even know clearly what I think about this issue, other than what's most painfully apparent is how infrequently sex workers themselves are consulted about their thoughts on the issue of decriminalisation, rather than others speaking 'for' them (sometimes/often based upon the idea that a shared gender is enough for one to act as a spokesperson for all women, as though no other lines of division between people exist [also on a side note, fact that big proportion of sex workers in UK are men seems often to be completely forgotten in the debate]). As such, this is worth reading: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...y-corbyn-money

Yes men can be victims too but I cant help feeling this is all a distraction from the main issue, which HAS to be one of gender. Of course feminists must speak ‘for’ women, or what is it good for? The idea is to raise awareness of the exploitation that is behind the industry, and explode the many myths around decriminalization . What percentage of sex workers are men? How many women pay for sex with men? It is overwhelmingly women who are the victims of trafficking, exploitation, abuse and murder.

from an association of sex workers' organisations, so they have a claim to be representing their voices (though there are some who challenge this and suggest that organising cannot be separated from exploitation), a lot of it seems to follow on quite obviously once you've got past the taboos.

Sorry i havent read that document yet, but what do you consider to be the taboos?
From a look at their list of 8 rights, it doesnt seem like any of them can be achieved by decriminalisation or legalisation. On the contrary, it would play into the hands of the organised crime groups who control the sex industry.

reading my post back i'm kicking myself for parroting the term 'sex worker'. much more accurate to just say 'prostitute'. selling your body to 5 or 6 complete strangers a day for years on end is exploitation, no matter how much they get paid. if it is to be considered work, then it is unlike any other.

I imagine I take a somewhat different tact to this than some of you in that I donít see anything inherently wrong with selling or buying sex. I donít see the acts in and of themselves as dehumanising, exploitative, contributing to rape culture, etc.

It seems it's so difficult to measure the effects of decriminalisation that it would be hard to take a firm stance on the issue. However due to the seeming increase in human trafficking resulting from decriminalisation I am tentatively against it.

I want to find out more about about the effects of decriminalisation on disease. Also that New Zealand report sounded very optimistic so I'll read that in full.

It's very weird to see the word 'abolition' being used in this context. Now there are important differences between the drug trade and the sex trade, obviously, but they have in common the hugely important fact of being the source of massive amounts of criminality due to various governments' attempts to stop people from paying for things they like, and want, very much.

How well, would you say, has the 'abolition' of illegal drugs worked in the UK, or anywhere else? How well did the 'abolition' of alcohol go in the USA a century ago?

Don't see what's 'weird' about using the word abolition. If like me you believe that there is something fundamentally abusive about any act of buying a person for sex, and that decriminalization or legalization would only make abuse worse, I'm not sure what else to call it.
And just because lots of people really really like and want something (like a spoilt child) does not mean it is acceptable. Comparisons to the abolition of illegal drugs and alcohol are unhelpful - what you call 'important' differences' between them are important enough to cloud the issue at hand - and I'd argue that in the case of prostitution there is even more at stake.

Short of that, probably not. It just seems unrealistic and has the whiff of men criminalising women, which is maybe worse than exploiting them?

No, abolitionists (at least the kind that I support) do not believe in criminalizing women. Quite the opposite, they are concerned with liberation of prostitutes from slavery. They oppose legalization and decriminalisation for the reasons I've outlined above.

Abolition is a pipe dream. Its the world's oldest profession for a reason.

The comparisons with drugs is adroit, because people will always want to take drugs. It can never be stopped, so the choice is to criminalise or regulate. The former always leads to worse outcomes - with the latter there is at least a chance of a less vicious system.

As for the moral argument - the harm principle applies. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone else. Its not up to me or you to decide that someone else's choices are fundamentally abusive and it seems to me the potential for harm is decreased in a regulated system.

No, abolitionists (at least the kind that I support) do not believe in criminalizing women. Quite the opposite, they are concerned with liberation of prostitutes from slavery. They oppose legalization and decriminalisation for the reasons I've outlined above.

Well ok, but I'd like to know what methods they propose. If it's something like the universal basic income or opposition to austerity (as proposed in the video above) then I would support that.